To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
First, "typical" power dissipation is not the same as idle - it's TYPICAL - say an average given typical usage of the system. I don't know about you, but my systems are rarely idle. So it's not idle, but it's not max - it's in-between.
Second, a 1.6 GHz G5 will beat a 2 GHz Pentium M at most tasks. Pentium M's have received a lot of attention lately because enthusiast sites have shown that overclocking a Pentium M to 2.5 GHz allows it to play a few game demo benchmarks at close to Athlon 64 speeds. However, if you check all the other benchmarks, Pentium Ms score very poorly, even overclocked by 50%.
A G5 is a monster chip on par with the Opteron and Xeon EM64T chips. It's not faster than the AMD64, but it's in the same ballpark. The fact of the matter is, the Pentium M is not in that ballpark at all.




Member since:
From your link: "A new, low-power 970FX consumes between 13W and 16W at frequencies of 1.2GHz, 1.4GHz and 1.6GHz. That's more than the 10W that the Freescale MPC7448 found in today's 1.5Ghz PowerBooks consumes, but around half the maximum power consumption of Intel's Pentium M, which powers today's Centrino laptops."
The chips don't consume from 13W to 16W! You have the 1.2Ghz which consumes 13W typically (not under load) and the 1.6Ghz which consumes 16W typically (not under load). You obviously can't compare those numbers with the MAXIMUM Pentium M power consumption because typical load and maximum load generate very different power consumption. Besides, these chips aren't released yet!
Please tell me why the 1.6Ghz G5 (which won't be here at least until the end of the year) is faster than the faster Dothan Pentium M? And what about Yonah? I'm sorry, you can argue that G5 is a better chip for workstations/desktops BUT I find it hard someone finds me a better mobile chip than Dothan (currently) and Yonah (early next year). Please, please, show me I'm wrong!!